This is the third time *Sightings* has gazed at "charitable choice "and "faith-based" ventures.  Not necessarily the most urgent topic, it nevertheless can be revealing since people in both parties are on both sides.  Some find pro and con arguments in their own minds and outlooks.

To some the term "faith-based" seems deceptive.  What are the choices? "Spirituality-based?"  Hardly:  spirituality, "me-centered," does not form associations to attract human-service volunteers.  "Religion-based?" This might pick up enemies in a time when the spirituality people are teaching us to mistrust "religion." "Church-based," as in "church and state?" More than "church" is involved.

"Faith" can mean "personal faith," or "faith in...," or "faith that...." It may mean communities of the faithful.  We speak of "American faiths, "meaning faith groups.  The ambiguities are appropriate.  (I helped found and name the Park Ridge Center for Health, Faith, and Ethics, so I'll sit on the sidelines of this debate about terms.)

So, to the issues, where the pro side is clear.  For decades Catholic and Lutheran and Salvation Army and most other religious-institution-related humanitarian agencies have dispersed funds gathered through tax revenues. They have done so virtually without controversy, by having set up legally stringent measures to keep the "faith" out of range to recipients. Tax funds are not used for evangelizing, proselytizing, religious education, or worship. The record in that respect is good.

Also, on the pro side, much of the public likes faith-based ventures because they tend to be economical, efficient, and enlarged since they put lay and volunteer talent to work, allowing these organizations to serve more people.  And, importantly, "faith-based" does not have to be designed to serve only the religious right, as some fear.  Catholics, mainline Protestants, and African-American churches are more at home with this concept than many evangelicals.

On the con side of this debate are some cautions.  One of the biggest fears -- watch the debates -- is that some will use faith-based, partly volunteer initiatives as an excuse not to address pressing issues of social welfare, which necessarily depend upon government expenditures.  For this reason, some judge faith-based initiatives as too inadequate and small to deal with large social issues.

Another caution is that some newcomers on the scene will undoubtedly combine evangelizing with humanitarian service.  This can be innocent, as when a black pastor argues that only the born-again will have a strong enough weapon to fight off drug addiction.  But innocent or not, such situations make more than a few people uneasy.

Many religious groups have their own worries.  Many Southern Baptists and evangelicals are not the only religious people cautious about dependency on government, the potential sapping of lay initiative, the loss true volunteer and faith-based efforts.  We hear from those suspicious of government:  "Whoever takes the king's shekels gets the king's shackles."

The new president has ensured that this complicated debate will continue in coming months.  Stay tuned.